3 ms·

> Serious question: How do you know if it's right or wrong? I don't know much linguistics, but sometimes the sound-changes involved seem plausible to me which

> Serious question: How do you know if it's right or wrong? I don't know much linguistics, but sometimes the sound-changes involved seem plausible to me which leads me to trust it ("yeah that makes sense"). When I do follow the references they normally check out. In some cases where there weren't references I did some sleuthing myself and provided them (things checked out). In another case it seemed that two words should be marked as related, so I asked on the etymology scriptorium ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptor... is their etymology messageboard - I find it highly entertaining to browse through people figuring out a random assortment of etymologies in the same place), and someone took the time to explain to me (to my satisfaction) that no it was just by random chance. A few other times when I've found problems (last one was some vowel-length inconsistencies for a Latin word entry) I've asked about them, had them confirmed as problems, and fixed them (in the case mentioned, it was reverting someone else's erroneous change). Also, some people I know who are a lot more experienced with linguistics [still amateurs, but...very highly skilled amateurs] than I am contribute to it. All of these experiences lead me to have a high level of regard for wiktionary. As said, I'm not very experienced with linguistics, but I haven't gotten the sense that the people running the shop are anything other than competent. >Ever check cites on Wikipedia? Many of them do not at all support what is written in the article Dictionary citations of the sort you get on wiktionary tend to be less open to interpretation.

wolverine876 5y ago
Thanks for the thoughtful answer! IMHO: > seem plausible to me > someone took the time to explain to me (to my satisfaction) > I've asked about them, had them confirmed as problems, and fixed them Based on that, Wiktionary's standard of accuracy is what will be accepted by a non-expert. That's a pretty low standard; that's people talking in a college dorm room or in a bar. It's nothing personal - my intuitions on etymology are no better. That's also how misinformation is created and spreads; it's right out of the textbook. Research shows that our intuitions about what's true are terrible if we don't have expertise in the issue, and that is how we are most easily fooled. "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman
- jan_Inkepa 5y ago
  Yeah as a non-expert I can only vouch so far. I can say that the time I did my deepest dive (about the various Latin words that look like 'pila' if you ignore vowel length, and their etymology - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pila#Latin https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pila#Latin), using wiktionary as a starting point for trawling 'real' scholarly references I presented the work to my Latin teacher, a university professor of Ancient Greek, who said it checked out (though, he's a classicist and not a general linguist, so maybe that doesn't count. And maybe he was just humouring me). What we need is a linguist to get on here and give their take, and tell us how it fares compared to the professional resources.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > What we need is a linguist to get on here and give their take, and tell us how it fares compared to the professional resources. Agreed. BTW, regardless of Wiktionary, I love the research - it's such creative, intriguing, stimulating work to explore those things. When people react, as (IMHO) they are conditioned to, to intellectual things with fear, hesitation and/or negativity, I think 'ugh, you are missing so much, the most beautiful things in this universe and many others.' And see my other comment about the OED. It's the best tool for it.

wolverine876 5y ago

Thanks for the thoughtful answer! IMHO: > seem plausible to me > someone took the time to explain to me (to my satisfaction) > I've asked about them, had them confirmed as problems, and fixed them Based on that, Wiktionary's standard of accuracy is what will be accepted by a non-expert. That's a pretty low standard; that's people talking in a college dorm room or in a bar. It's nothing personal - my intuitions on etymology are no better. That's also how misinformation is created and spreads; it's right out of the textbook. Research shows that our intuitions about what's true are terrible if we don't have expertise in the issue, and that is how we are most easily fooled. "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman

jan_Inkepa 5y ago
Yeah as a non-expert I can only vouch so far. I can say that the time I did my deepest dive (about the various Latin words that look like 'pila' if you ignore vowel length, and their etymology - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pila#Latin https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pila#Latin), using wiktionary as a starting point for trawling 'real' scholarly references I presented the work to my Latin teacher, a university professor of Ancient Greek, who said it checked out (though, he's a classicist and not a general linguist, so maybe that doesn't count. And maybe he was just humouring me). What we need is a linguist to get on here and give their take, and tell us how it fares compared to the professional resources.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > What we need is a linguist to get on here and give their take, and tell us how it fares compared to the professional resources. Agreed. BTW, regardless of Wiktionary, I love the research - it's such creative, intriguing, stimulating work to explore those things. When people react, as (IMHO) they are conditioned to, to intellectual things with fear, hesitation and/or negativity, I think 'ugh, you are missing so much, the most beautiful things in this universe and many others.' And see my other comment about the OED. It's the best tool for it.